Complaint No. CC006000000303141

CC006000000375050

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC006000000303141

Adarsh Kumar Srivastava,Amrita Srivastava

... Complainant

Versus

Vijay Group Housing Pvt Limited


... Respondent

2. Complaint No. CC006000000375050

Mahipal Bhoormal Mehta


... Complainant

Versus

Vijay Group Housing Pvt Ltd


... Respondent


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52000000959


Coram: Shri. Mahesh Pathak, Hon’ble Member – I/MahaRERA

The complainant at Sr. No. 1 appeared in person.
None appeared for the complainant at Sr. No. 2.
None appeared for the respondent.


INTERIM ORDER


(Tuesday. 19th November 2024)

(Through Video Conferencing)


1. The complainants above named have filed these complaints before the MahaRERA
on 10-08-2023 seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the
entire amount paid by them along with interest and compensation under the
provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking of their respective
flats in the respondent’s registered project known as “Vijay Estate Vakas Phase -
1” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P52000000959 located at Karjat, Dist.


Complaint No. CC006000000303141

CC006000000375050

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Raigarh.

2. These complaints were heard by the MahaRERA today as per the Standard
Operating Procedure dated 12-06-2020 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of
complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued prior
intimation of this hearing and they were also informed to file their written
submissions if any. Accordingly, the complainant at Sr. No. 1 appeared and made
his submissions. However, despite the notice of hearing, the complainant at Sr.
No. 2 and the respondent remained absent.

3. During the course of hearing, the MahaRERA has noticed that the complainants
by filing these complaints have approached the MahaRERA mainly seeking
directions to the respondent to refund the entire amount paid by them along with
interest and compensation.

4. However, during the course of hearing, the MahaRERA has further noticed that
NCLT proceeding has been initiated against the respondent - promoter under the
Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.
Hence, the MahaRERA has perused the available record.

5. However, in the present case on bare perusal of the website of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India, the MahaRERA has prima facie noticed that the M/s.
Gracious Communications Pvt. Ltd. has filed Company Petition No. CP (IB) No.
862 (MB)/2019 against the respondent - promoter under Section 7 of the I&B Code,

2016. 6.
From the available record, the MahaRERA has further noticed that on 30-09-2022,
the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai (NCLT) has passed an


Complaint No. CC006000000303141

CC006000000375050

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

order in CP (IB) No. 862 (MB)/2019 filed by M/s. Gracious Communications Pvt.
Ltd, i.e., the Operational Creditor therein, against the respondent herein, thereby
admitting the respondent herein into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
(CIRP) in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016

7. Further, as recorded in para d (of the Operative Part of the Order) of the said order
passed by the NCLT moratorium has already been ordered against the respondent
promoter. In view thereof, as provided under section 14 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which mandates a moratorium on the institution and
continuation of legal proceedings against a Corporate Debtor (respondent herein)
in respect of which an order of admission into CIRP has been passed by the
Adjudicating Authority, applies to the respondent herein. Hence institution of
suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the respondent
including execution of any

JUDGMENT

, decree, or order in any court of law, tribunal,
arbitration panel or other authority is prohibited.

8. Hence, the said crucial fact about the appointment of CIRP in respect of the
respondent company cannot be ignored by the MahaRERA. Further, the
complainant at Sr. No. 1 has stated that he is aware of the said NCLT proceeding
filed against the respondent and he has also filed his claim before the IRP
appointed in the said proceedings.

9. Be that as it may, in the present case, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the
NCLT, the MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide these complaints against the
respondent at this stage and hence the present complaints are adjourned sine die.
In the meantime, both the complainants may pursue their claims for refund
before the CIRP if they so desires and the respondent is hereby directed to facilitate


Complaint No. CC006000000303141

CC006000000375050

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the complainants for the same.

10. However, liberty is granted to the complainants to approach MahaRERA after
final disposal of the said insolvency proceeding pending against the respondent,
if need be.


(Mahesh Pathak)
Member – 1/MahaRERA